Main menu:

Site search

Categories

August 2008
S M T W T F S
« Jul   Sep »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Tags

Arguments for God's Pure Actuality

Blogroll

Ethics: Artistic Integrity

Ethics: Rule Utilitarianism

Review of "Natural Atheism"

Review of "Satisficing and Maximizing"

Review of "The Improbability of God"

How to Be a Good Utilitarian

Just as violence is an SP Artisan weapon, so deception is an NT Rational weapon. Just as self-defense is permitted violence, even given the libertarian non-aggression principle, so lying is, too, a form of self-defense. Theoretically, deceiving can even work as punishment, as you watch the person punished fail at his projects. Just as in martial arts it is best to avoid fighting altogether, and when forced to fight, damage the opponent only to the extent sufficient to neutralize him, it is the best policy always to tell the truth. But some people do not deserve the truth. Thus, a murderer seeking his victim can be legitimately misled as to the victim’s location. Just as a person becomes a good fighter through rigorous training, so one presumably can become a good liar by practicing in safe environments. Again, lying is a skill that ought only to be used in legitimate defense of oneself or another. However, I expect that just as some people have adopted pacifism as their philosophy, so others will swear never to utter a lie.

Now utilitarianism seeks to promote happiness, but the best way to do so is to teach people how to accomplish their own goals. As I have mentioned numerous times in my posts on religion, not even God can dispense with our own strivings. We must make ourselves and earn our own glory or shame. Paternalism is not a way to happiness. So, before filling a society with happiness, one must needs “fill it with truth” and enable people to make their own decisions through knowledge of this truth. Consider that the price system is means of conveying truth to market participants on the supply and demand of goods and services. Socialism destroys this truth-telling system. As I write here, “A socialist country does not have an economy; its central planners operate in the dark, unaware of how their actions affect other human beings.” The planners are blind; they have no information on how to choose rationally. As such, socialism is profoundly immoral, because people in it can’t tell when their self-interested undertakings, if successful, are going to be in the interest of the common good. Further, it is certainly in the interest of general happiness to help most people achieve their goals, but, since the punishment theory peculiar to NTs is deterrence, it is equally in this interest to hinder criminals’ attempts to achieve their goals, and potential evildoers who are contemplating some criminal act must be carefully manipulated and steered into choosing more productive ways of earning a living.

The first step to becoming a good utilitarian, then, is to know yourself and avoid any and all self-deceptions. The second step is to communicate your knowledge to others by teaching them the truth about whatever area you have mastered. The third step is to know when to tell the truth and when to lie, and if you choose to lie, do it with deadly consequences for your enemy, just as gun experts normally recommend shooting to kill in a dangerous confrontation with an aggressor, though if one is very good at shooting, he can try to minimize the damage to his enemy. The final step, if you are called to it, is to rule prudently not only yourself but others, as well.

Comments

Comment from Adam E Zandarski
Time August 25, 2008 at 11:52 pm

Yes, yes. It is funny to watch the self righteous when they they’re wrong, they know it, and they can find no further way to use pages upon pages of circular logic to justify themselves in the name of so-called freedom.
Sins that are necessary are not good. You should not lie, lest it be absolutely necessary. Even then you should try to lead “the murderer” away without lying.
And your subconscious shows the fallacy of your “liberty” argument. One must lead men, not rule them. You should know that.

Comment from Dmitry Chernikov
Time August 26, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Adam, yes, I agree that you should not lie, lest it be absolutely necessary. And I say so in the OP.

When I say “rule” I do not mean autocractic rule but “governance,” such as of a family, department, corporation, and even town in the general interest or for the common good. This requires a particularly advanced form of prudence, because you must somehow estimate “total happiness” of the people you are governing.

Comment from Adam E Zandarski
Time August 27, 2008 at 1:06 am

Mr. Chernikov, I respect you and your like for fighting the good fight. There are few who believe in freedom these days. But I think the libertarian argument is a facade. It is a mind-bending tilt-a-whirl designed to hide “greed is good” behind freedom. It seems to be entirely in response to socialism. It claims the best qualities of the greatest destroyers of feudalism and would use those as a new method, not to do it itself, but to allow those same “nobles” to establish a capitalist fiefdom over the people.
I thank you for debating me and helping me to establish an argument. Many of the ideas you support are the greatest asset to a reformation movement. But many of the people that support it, and the outcomes that would develop, I believe would bring ruin upon the great progress that has been made for the common man in the last three centuries.

Comment from Dmitry Chernikov
Time August 27, 2008 at 7:59 am

Adam, it was a pleasure to discuss these things with you. Come back any time.

Comment from names.txt
Time July 29, 2009 at 6:51 pm

Good stuff, bookmark +1 ;)

Write a comment